As Congressional discussions on healthcare reform are beginning, the likelihood of healthcare reform being passed by the end of the year is subsiding.

And if healthcare reform is not passed by the end of the year it is unlikely to be passed during President Obama’s first term.

Disagreements over whether or not to create a government sponsored healthcare provider to compete with private providers is becoming a wedge issue that is threatening to kill health care reform in its infancy.

The creation of a government sponsored or public provider would be a grave mistake and a slippery slope to a single payer system.  A public provider would be subsidized by the government and would compete unfairly with private providers; which would push private providers out of the market, leading to a single payer system.

Single payer systems, in which everyone pays into a single government run program that then distributes care, such as the Canadian system, have proved inefficient at distributing quality healthcare.

Evidence “shows that delays in the public healthcare system are widespread, and that, in some cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public healthcare,” according to Canada’s Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin.

The average Canadian would likely agree with McLachlin.  As of 2005, only 6 percent of surveyed Canadians felt optimistic about the Canadian system’s ability to deliver quality healthcare.

Canadians have good reason to be pessimistic, in addition to long waits for care; socialized systems often deliver a lower quality of care to patients suffering from severe diseases that require costly treatments.  In the United States, the prostate cancer mortality rate is 19 percent; in Canada it is 25 percent.  However, Canada’s rate is far better than the United Kingdom’s rate of 57 percent!

Therefore, finding a moderate approach to healthcare reform will be the key to moving healthcare legislation through Congress, as well as improving America’s healthcare system.

The Senate Finance Committee, led by Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), might have such an approach.  A draft proposal, put out by Baucus’ committee, proposes the formation of government facilitated cooperative plans, which are owned by consumers.

Such cooperatives would allow Americans the choice of buying health insurance at lower group rates, which would be negotiated between the government and private insurers.  This would influence other insurers to lower their rates in order to compete with the government cooperatives, thereby lowering the costs of health insurance for everyone.

This proposition is a promising one.  Government cooperatives would lower the costs of health insurance, through a consumer owned plan that would not be subsidized by the government.

Obama has yet to endorse the idea of healthcare cooperatives, and he has yet to announce that he is willing to do without the option of a public provider.  However, he will have to compromise with Senate Republicans and conservative Democrats if he is to pass healthcare reform.

Both groups fear the large costs that would accompany a government subsidized public provider.  Additionally, many deficit hawks feel that the public is beginning to grow weary of America’s growing deficits.

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that 57 percent of those polled agreed that “the federal government should not spend money to stimulate the national economy and should instead focus on reducing the budget deficit.”

This has put Obama’s attempt at healthcare reform in jeopardy.  If the public will not condone the large price tag that reform will carry it is unlikely that Congress will throw their support behind it.

Therefore, a moderate and relatively inexpensive solution to America’s healthcare crisis is the kind of solution that Obama should be looking for.  Baucus’ plan for healthcare cooperatives is a good place to start.

Popularity: 1% [?]